linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:22:27 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of
 explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

Hello,

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of
> > > WQ_NON_REENTRANT.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
> 
> Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> for merging through any
> tree that pleases you (if it makes merging easier for WQ_NON_REENTRANT
> removal). Or should I just merge this through drm-intel-next?

I think it would be better to route this one through drm-intel-next.
WQ_NON_REENTRANT won't be deprecated until after the next -rc1 anyway.

Thanks!

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/